Seems tasty, must be more healthy than chicken.

At least you gave him 4 months of glory...

It just means your a spammer.

I actually have this myself. Did yours come with those goofy trading cards?

I need to find the vinyl for it.

I need to add some of these up, lawl.

We gotta put this song on the site. ROFL

Faelyos. Asmodiwin.

Meatliy?

Is that a word?

Thanks for the compliment(?), I might get around to posting some more later on.

Cool shots and beautiful scenery (even the feet in the stream ) Thanks for sharing them!

Cool, thanks man.

Huh, that's interesting. Still, I don't exactly see the point in your first argument. In a coin toss, there is still a probability that the 10 flips will result in all heads or all tails; it'd just be .5^10.

That aside, what you're saying about chance, that is very true, yes? Probabilities are only applicable in "ideal scenarios", which are never attained in life, since as you said, there are various factors that all lead to various outcomes: weight distribution, flipping strength, distance coin is allowed to fall, etc...

While theoretically, the results can be calculated, the realm of such calculations falls into chaos theory. From what little I know if it, such theory is based on all scenarios in which a very slight change in the starting variables leads to a very drastic change in the ending variable.

The first example that comes to mind is the Mandelbrot Set, which you can Google if you haven't heard about it. Chaos systems are complex enough when only a few variables are involved, with the understanding that society has of it now, though I believe that chaos theory is also blossoming rapidly. It's the new frontier of sorts for mathematicians.

Anyway, I think it is being used right now for predicting weather, at the very least, so, yeah! I'm not sure what the purpose of all my typing was. I suppose it was just ramblings and thoughts in response to your blog.

The world is all in our experience. All theories cannot be proven but can be falsified. Good science is constant testing. (I just realized I used Kattrina's examples but...) Remember when we thought the world was flat and pretty much everybody agreed? What if those scientists and observers just gave up and accepted it for a fact? We probably would have never found out it is in fact round. Remember when the scholastics said that the earth was the center of the solar system? Uh oh, think again. And so I'm a little more original here, Socrates, Newton, Einstein, gravity. Science is not objective. Law is not objective. Nothing is objective. Science is simply a consistent cause-and-effect we observe and somewhat seem to accept. What if suddent A->B becomes A->C? Proof and any of its other forms is a bad word in philosophy and science. Just because there is no scientific evidence of something does not mean it does not exist. Scientific evidence suggests, argues, contends, proposes, but never proves anything. It's like saying that the big bang created the universe but then what created the big bang? There's some scientific theory or law that mass cannot be created or destroyed. Some major contradiction there. Hey, maybe it was God who created the big bang, which created the universe. Uh oh! There are things in this material world that seem to have no explanation, only hypotheses. How about ball lightning?

I assume you follow the mind-brain identity. You've established the definition of soul for your sake of argument but it just seems like you're talking about the mind (consciousness, emotions, rationality, mental processing, etc.). Now you see, if everything is empirical in this world, we lack any free choice. You, therefore, contradict yourself because how can you choose to believe in a soul or not? Your "choice" was made for you. Brain is mind, right? So our emotions are basically just a bunch of chemical processes in the brain. So since that's the case, everything in this world is predetermined because of social situations, bodily functions, genetics, instincts, evolution, etc. You were basically born through an extremely long series of predetermined chain of events. For example, if your ancestor had chosen a different mate compared to the one that s/he did, things would be drastically different. However, going by your theory, there actually is no choice in the matter -- in any matter. The ancestor experienced a certain social situation which led to another situation while under the effects of X chemical, which causes a performed action, so on, so forth. That may be how our world operates but I certainly am not happy with that, at all. Can you measure a mind? Can you see it? You may see the brain but what about everything else? Remember Descartes? "I think therefore I am." Evil genius experiment. Just throwing things out there. It's hard to deny that you exist, have a mind, think.

Here's something else. If you believe in that theory, maybe you can compare the body of an animal and human. Maybe later on, we can distinguish brain patterns and chemicals to seek a sense of morality inside animals. Just as later on, we may create AI capable of a "soul" or essentially a mind. So if you're capable of building it, why would you be unable to know how the unit processes? Lacks logic there. Begs the question. There's no scientific proof that computers, animals, or plants expressing or containing rationality so therefore it doesn't exist (applying your logic there). Whoops, not so convenient now.

And another thing is that you're arguing against, for lack of a better word, religion (I know you're not specifically targetting religion, at least I hope), which is a matter of faith. Even if people can somehow, one day, "prove" that a soul or God or whatever does not exist does not mean you will persuade them. What if they "proved" that the soul existed? Would you accept it? Kierkegaard doesn't call it the "leap of faith" for nothing. You're repeating Aquinas' mistake of trying to rationalize something that cannot be rationalized. It is beyond the natural; yet, you're arguing in terms of the natural. It doesn't work. How can you "prove" that something does not exist? Impossible.

Also, just because something is material does not mean we can replicate it (at least not yet). Do you have any idea how complex our circulatory system is (Family Guy reference)? How about our brain? However, I'll give you this. If we are able to perfectly clone a normal functioning human later on, then maybe there is no soul. How does one even obtain a soul? Aren't humans giving birth to humans? Miracle of life? Who knows? Science can only take you so far. It makes me question what you think of human potential. Humans did, in fact, create science and technology, at least I think. O_O;

I believe that after-life devalues life. I hate the idea. I'm existentialist (big surprise there! ;P). I also hate authority. So know that I don't entirely disagree with you on God, death, and the soul. I do, however, spot fallacies as well as flawed logic. You contradict yourself and beg the question. The way you typed your argument also bothered me especially this statement: "If you've answered 'yes' at the beginning of this blog, you're most likely to change that after you've read this." I won't say anything specific about that sentence but it reeks of something(s). Language is powerful. Be careful. It's good to be skeptical.

Kellyos, deli-os(they're meatily delicious!), Mellyos.

assholidan?

Ah, the dangers of power-outages.